Memory Alpha:Files for deletion
Klingon weapon Photos 6 image links removed... They all come from http://www.klingonimperialweaponsguild.org The site has this Notice at the bottom: "This page is for personal, recreational and non profit use. *Klingon* is a copyright item and the property of Paramount Studios and the Estate of Gene Roddenberry. No infringement on those rights are intended. ''The Klingon Imperial Weapons Guild is an original concept of Ambassador Lady K'Zin (Capucine Plourde) and K'Daq Kasara (Richard Robin). Copyright 1997 - 2005. ''The "Forge at the *Heart of Kri'stak*" and *mupwI'* are original ideas of K'Daq (Richard Robin). Copyright 1997 - 2005. All knife images and articles are the property of K'Daq (Richard Robin) , K'Beck (Tim Coy) and the KIWG (unless otherwise indicated) and may not be used without permission." - :Well, if we want to keep them, then we could ask those people for permission. do we want to keep them? --Bp 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC) ::Good question. I am personally a fan of doing just screencaps, but many of these do not have a good screencap possibility. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC) :::If we NEED a shot of one of these, then get permission, but screenies are preferred. --''6/6'' ''Neural Transceiver'' 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Has anybody asked permission to use these images or at least tried to look for actual screencaps? It's been over two months; we need to do something with these. --From Andoria with Love 10:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC) ::::: Moved from copyvio page, can we get these replaced with the best caps we can find and delete these? --Alan 02:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC) :::::: The images can be used on MemoryAlpha regardless of conditions set forth on the website as MemoryAlpha claims fair use (which "is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work" -Wikipedia) I guess a tag needs to be created though... MatthewFenton 22:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC) ::As has been said elsewhere, "fair use" is not blanket permission to use any and all copyrighted material. We do not feel that this falls under "fair use". --OuroborosCobra talk 23:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC) ::::: As well, screen caps would much be preferred, as well as some confirmation as to indicate proof of their existence. --Alan 00:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC) ::::::If someone wants to try to contact them to get permission, here are eMail addresses I found in the above link. ::::::K'Daq ::::::K'Beck ::::::Editor3000 20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC) ::::: I've deleted all but like two that still need to be replaced with screencaps. --Alan 03:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ::::: Can anyone ever confirm these ever appeared on screen at any point? --Alan del Beccio 23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Image:Kang, James T. Kirk, Spock.jpg / Image:Sulu in engineering.jpg replace Image:Kang, James T. Kirk, Spock.jpg with a large image of Image:Sulu in engineering.jpg and rename. --Alan 02:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC) *Agreed. Go for it. ;) --From Andoria with Love 15:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Duplicate images - VOY:Bliss - Telepathic pitcher plant Image:Voy TPP Maw.jpg|(1) Image:Voy TPP Maw.jpg Image:Telepathic pitcher plant.jpg|(2) Image:Telepathic pitcher plant.jpg Image:Voyager Enters the Creature's Maw.jpg|(3) Image:Voyager Enters the Creature's Maw.jpg Image:Voyager and Qatai Escape.jpg|(4) Image:Voyager and Qatai Escape.jpg Duplicate images, all showing the "Telepathic pitcher plant", some in combination with different starships. It's hard to distinguish the individual starhips anyway, so I guess we don't need all four images. Probably just 1 or max. 2 need to be kept. (2) has the best filename (which should be kept), but the worst image quality, so one of the other three should be re-uploaded there. Then, two or all three of the others could probably be removed. -- Cid Highwind 12:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC) *Move #4 or #3 to #2's file name. Delete #1 and which ever one wasn't moved. #4 has more of the pitcher plant so that should probably be the one that remains, although #3 looks niftier. --From Andoria with Love 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Duplicate images - VOY:Bliss - Organism schematic Image:Bioplasmicorganism.jpg|(1) Image:Bioplasmicorganism.jpg Image:Voy TPP Astro.jpg|(2) Image:Voy TPP Astro.jpg Image:Voyager in the Creature.jpg|(3) Image:Voyager in the Creature.jpg (1) and (2) are near-duplicate images. Considering filenames, I suggest deletion of (2). (3) is not an exact duplicate, but not showing much new content either. Deletion of that one up for discussion, I guess. -- Cid Highwind 12:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC) *'Keep' Image:Voy TPP Astro.jpg. Delete the others. --From Andoria with Love 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC) *I merged that image over to Image:Bioplasmicorganism.jpg. So the wrong one didnt get deleted. --Alan del Beccio 04:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Duplicate images - VOY:Future's End - Observatory+statue Image:Griffith Observatory.jpg|(1) Image:Griffith Observatory.jpg Image:Griffith Observatory Herschel.jpg|(2) Image:Griffith Observatory Herschel.jpg Image:Hipparchus Galileo Copernicus.jpg|(3) Image:Hipparchus Galileo Copernicus.jpg Three images, showing an observatory with statue in front (1), a closeup of the statue (3), and something in-between (2). (2) can probably be orphaned by replacing it with one of the others, then deleted. -- Cid Highwind 09:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC) : I had actually question this here. I suppose the two that are intended to show the persons could be cropped. --Alan 04:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC) ::Keep. Yes, there is a reason why I uploaded three pictures, so we could get images of the astronomers depicted on the statues. I expanded the article around the time when the Griffith Observatory was re-opened and thought it couldn't hurt to have an article a little more extensive about this LA landmark that appeared in Trek and also was used several times for various wrap parties. --Jörg 09:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC) "Implied rank" images *Image:US o-1 rank pin.png *Image:US o-7 rank pin.png *Image:US o-8 rank pin.png *Image:EnsignStripe.png These three images (all tagged with "pna-cite" for some time now) were deleted without discussion. After that, undeletion has been requested, and I undeleted these images. Discussion about this can be found here, here and here. I undeleted these images following undeletion policy - however, I think the rationale for deletion of these images has its merits. They weren't shown, so we don't really need an image for it. -- Cid Highwind 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC) :Very much against deletion DELETE 2nd Lieutenant/Ensign, KEEP all General ranks: I am being kind of a pain-in-the butt about this because other images (like this one) have been allowed to exist since they are implied by the rank schemes in which they appear. As far as the images above go, a one and two star general insignia is very clearly implied since we have flat out seen three and four star generals. The 2nd Lieutenant is a little bit harder to defend, but the principal is the same. And, I say again, if these images go then why are we allowing all of the upper Admiral insignia shown in Starfleet ranks to stay in that table. The ranks have never been seen, the insignia never discussed, but there the images are in the table. If thats good enough for Starfleet ranks, why not United States military insignia? Against deleting. -FleetCaptain 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC) A point to consider would be the fact that we are a Star Trek wiki, not a US military wiki. All other things being equal, it would just not be as important to have a "locigal but unseen" US military rank on this wiki as it would be having a "logical but unseen" Starfleet rank. However, I see where you're coming from in regard to the Starfleet ranks article. At the very least, the conjectural nature of those ranks should be emphasized somehow. -- Cid Highwind 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC) :COMMENT: I have changed my vote up above to get rid of the 2nd Lieutenant bar. 2LT as well as Ensign cant be defended since the color change wouldnt be that obvious and the names of the ranks themselves could be called into question. However, with that given, I have changed the article to reflect that the general ranks are listed as "one star", "two star", "three star", "four star". By the strict letter of the law, in , we did actually see a one and two star insignia on camera: they were part of the single three star insignia. I know that is streching it, but Spock would say that logic dictates that if we have a 3 and 4 star general then we must also have a 1 and 2 star general. We also know from the real world that this is in fact the case. So, with the change in names for the general ranks and the get-ridding-of the O-1 positions which aren't ever seen or talked about, that can wrap it all up, I think. Do people agree? -FleetCaptain 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) : Delete Although I see where you are coming for to keep this images, I agree with Cid Highwind. We are a Star Trek Wiki. On another note, these rank insignia are not really necessary to illustrate the respective pages where they belong. And one thing to keep in mind is that, in the Star Trek point of view, we have no idea if one or two stars are even the correct insignia. Obvioussly we know as the real-world point of view, but it is not common for discrepencies at a specific point in rank. :: I can appreciate the logic about the unseen insignia having to get the can, but this really is a double standard. It appears we are "breaking our own regulations when they become inconvienent" ( ) saying that its okay for us to have conjectured insignia on the Starfleet ranks article but not on another article about United States military ranks. And, I say again, in the case of the general ranks, having a three and a four star appear on screen is solid proof in my view that a one and a two star rank (and insignia) must exist. Perhaps we can put them in a background section, but my original argument stands that implied ranks have been allowed to appear in other articles so why not this one. -FleetCaptain 23:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC) :E.G. When I started watching TNG, I developed a little fan site on my computer. Now when I started, I didn't know that an admiral had a long, square like pin, and assumed they wore 5 pips as rank determenation. Obvioussly, I learned later that it was a decorative rectangle. I don't know how much relevance that has, but that's why I always took caution to make sure things appear on screen. :I guess that last part was a bit rambling, but that is why I am voting Delete --Nmajmani 23:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC) : I am going to refine my decision here. FleetCaptain does make a good point. If we keep them in a background note that states that there exact use is not know, I think we can kep them. I just don't want a speedy asumption that they are for the ranks directly beneath them. --Nmajmani 00:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC) REQUEST TO CLOSE: With no further comments on the issue, and as the original uploader (CaptianMike) hasnt had anything further to add, I move that this discussion be closed with the General Stars being kept and the 2nd Lieutenant/Ensign insignia being deleted. Thank you. -FleetCaptain 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Image:TheEntities-UI.jpg so far, a personal image. --Alan del Beccio 10:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Image:Worf bathing suit.jpg Unused. A joke? --Alan del Beccio 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :Uploaded for a "Picture of the Day"-page, I think, from which it already has been removed again. I think we agreed to only use images we already use elsewhere, not upload "joke" images for PotD only. Delete, unless there's some other good use for it. -- Cid Highwind 10:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ::Perhaps I can intergrate it in the actual episode's page. It was a funny moment, and we do mention hilarious moments on episode summary pages. However, if it can't be done, my current vote is also Delete --Nmajmani 11:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC) KEEP Oh, come on, surely the image can be integrated into the episode summary! It is hilarious! It would be a shame to have to delete it. – [[User:Eyes Only|''Watching...]][[User Talk:Eyes Only| ''listening...]] 23:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Cleanup of There have been on average around 40 list here, now we are pushing 100. Not sure if these were replaced by a new file or removed altogether by peoples who think these things just take care of themselves or what, but it is rather difficult to locate where most of these one were or why they were ever removed. Either way, many are uncited, or of poor quality or are not screencaps, and all are (apparently) unused. Feel free to post by image or section, and if necessary start a new section for mor4e valuable images. --Alan del Beccio 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ;Non-cap: * Image:Eric A Stillwell.jpg * Image:EricStillwell2006.jpg * Image:Tos-phaser1with2.jpg ;ENT: * Image:Defiant-NCC1764 bridge - In a Mirror, Darkly.jpg * Image:NX armory.jpg * Image:Trip Tucker and Zho'Kaan.jpg * Image:VulcanSurface1.jpg ;TOS: * Image:Mirrorkirk1.JPG * Image:Sulu Uhura Kirk Chekov.jpg * Image:Tricorder-2280.jpg ;TNG: * Image:Dixon Hill nightclub.jpg * Image:Phoenix in persuit.JPG * Image:Picard gray uniform.jpg * Image:Riker and Troi 2369.jpg * Image:Rikerclock47.jpg * Image:Romulans2379.jpg * Image:Wesley gray uniform.jpg ;DS9: * Image:Bashir grins at garak civil defense.jpg * Image:Cmdr sisko sets uridium fuse civil defense.jpg * Image:Dominion ship flies off.jpg * Image:Jadzia bashir kira hear alert civil defense.jpg * Image:Jake in ore processing civil defense.jpg * Image:KiraNerysOccupation.jpg * Image:Quark's Bar, Crossfire.jpg ;VOY: * Image:Borg memory cascade.jpg * Image:Kes 2374.jpg * Image:Kohlars battle cruiser bridge 2.jpg * Image:Scientific method scan.jpg * Image:Seven reports to Chakotay.jpg * Image:Seven janeway shower human error.jpg * Image:Voyager bridge powers down.jpg Zoe Saldana.jpg ;Image:Zoe Saldana.jpg: Uncited copyrighted image with a very bad (albeit true) caption. --From Andoria with Love 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) *Keep, it clearly states the source of the image and fair use is thus implied. Ferenginar 07:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Image:Rule of Acquisition 33.jpg Unused, with no copyright tag. Possible vio? --Alan del Beccio 06:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Image:Kirs.jpg Interesting but of no use here. --Alan del Beccio 07:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC) :Delete unless there is a shot without the rear-view mirror or the user wants to use it on their user page. Ferenginar 07:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC) ::Regardless of that, no personal images. --Alan del Beccio 08:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC) :Why not? Ferenginar 08:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC) :::Delete : It's clearly a fan made object and therefore of no use on MA -- Q 08:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC) For the newer contributors: "Memory Alpha is not storage space. Do not use Memory Alpha for storing material unrelated to the project. (This includes your personal User: pages.) Uploaded files that are not directly related to an article will be deleted immediately." Also, "Your user page is not storage space. Do not use Memory Alpha for storing material unrelated to the project. Uploaded files that are not directly related to an article will be deleted immediately." This would very easily qualify as a immediate delete, but since we have a new wave of newbies, it seems polite to point this out for future reference. --Alan del Beccio 08:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC) :Is there some process through which admins can be nominated to be removed of their adminship? I resent the use of the term 'newbie'. This guy is making personal attacks. Ferenginar 08:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)